US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8386

On August 13 2017 10:10 Plansix wrote:
We live in interesting times.

On August 13 2017 11:06 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/eveewing/status/896348754550370306

She isn't wrong. They didn't even bother to wear hoods.

James Alex Fields, Jr. was booked and charged with one count of second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, failure to stop for an accident involving a death, and hit-and-run, Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Superintendent Martin Kumer told The Washington Post. Fields is 20 years old.

On August 13 2017 12:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Wait for his statement on why he did it to be released, if it is at all.

He's a terrorist, but in the US, he didn't kill enough. In order for people in the US to be considered a terrorist, body count has to exceed 5.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, killed two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, though they did not find evidence linking Hadayet to a terrorist group.

On August 13 2017 12:22 m4ini wrote:
Some interesting things..

That driver is a registered republican, i wonder how T_D is spinning that one, since it was clearly democrats trying to frame thoser fuckers.

Second, and it just absolutely baffles me (and makes me lose the last shred of respect towards the US federal institutions):



This actually pisses me off.

What pisses off even more is the fact that by US law he actually isn't a terrorist. Or rather, it depends on which definition of terror you want to use. Under the definition of the DoD and FEMA, he's a terrorist. Under the definition of the US Code, he's not.

Why does this come off as intentional?

edit: jeez, Ted Cruz and Rubio are calling it terrorism... Yet uncle Trump is too fucking retarded to even condemn white supremacists, framing everyone as equally guilty there.

On August 13 2017 12:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Sandy Hook was terrorism/mass murder
Colorado theater shooting was terrorism/mass murder
Charleston church shooting was terrorism/mass murder.

You can decide which was which. But they were all terrorism in nature. The motive needs to be known, which we know was hate based. Or maybe he was fueled up on meth and redbull and claims temporary insanity.

I'm calling it murder because in this country, there's a body count number that needs to be reached (don't really know what that number is), and the motive has to be based on something that can be tied rather closely to terrorism.

Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:

[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.[60]

Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:

(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended —
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum".[61]

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The U.S. Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010), the Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."

The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism ("usually political"). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.

You answered your own question. Nationality matters as well, of course.

2010 West Memphis police shootings: Two West Memphis police officers were killed by a father and son who supported the sovereign citizen movement during a traffic stop. The suspects were later killed by other officers.

Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting: Robert L. Dear, armed with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic. Two civilians and one police officer were killed, and four civilians and five police officers were wounded before the suspect surrendered. Dear told police "No more baby parts" after being taken into custody.

A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence. The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder". Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period.

On August 13 2017 12:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

My argument, failingly being presented, is that in my opinion, if you look at the new definition of terrorism as the politicians apply it, this isn't terrorism. Just a mentally unstable individual who wanted to cause mayhem at a rally. Sure, it can meet the literal definitions, but they won't call it that. Optics or something I guess.

The examples I gave above left no room for anyone to dawdle on what it was called. They term those examples terrorism because of the amount of people killed, not because of the motives behind them (exception being the church. That was explicitly stated by the perpetrator).